• Some may recall that in the past I stated that the problem bids should be designed to correct is not balancing the game b/c a perfectly balanced game would be boring, predictable and devoid of imagination but instead should balance the chances of winning between the two major bid types Power Europe and Power Africa.  The problem as asserted by me is that a bid of equal value say 23 is not worth the same as a PE bid as opposed to a PA bid.  That is a 23 bid is more effective when used as a PE bid than as a PA bid.  To this end I’ve been trying to think of ways out of this trap and came up with a rehashed old idea that I think might be very effective and that is to limit the # of units that can be bid to any one square to 4.  This means a PE bid that puts 4inf in Ukr must compensate for the likelyhood of getting attacked there by bidding more elsewhere and probably in Europe.  So whereas a 7unit PE bid can be very well protected even an 8unit PE bid split 4-4 btwn Ukr+EEuro or 4/2/2 btwn Ukr,Eeuro and FinNor still leaves enough openings for the Russians that they can enact a strategy.  More importantly one can bid an 8unit bid primarily to Africa without giving up more to the Axis than he is getting in return in offensive strength more himself.  I would like to know what others think b/c one reason I stopped played was b/c of this incongruity btwn bids.

  • Moderator

    I agree.

    I’m not sure if you remember this but one of my initial problems with bids that approach 23-24, is that it encourages one to just play PE.

    If a 23 PAfr doesn’t equal 23 PE then why risk losing the PAfr game when you can place 1 arm, and 6 inf in Europe and win many more games just due to the shear numbers.

    I like the idea of capping units per territory.  But if it can be demonstrated that the 8 inf bid (split 4-4) can be easily beaten by the Allies, then it ceases to be a viable option.

    Maybe if you mandate that Japan must get at least 2 units of every bid???

    That might be enough to ensure you don’t get an overpowering PE bid, but still enough to put up solid def/off against the Allies.


  • I have also heard of the bidding scheme where half the amount bidded, rounded down, must go towards the available cash rather than towards units.

    I’m not sure how well this worked out though.

    But I agree with the point made; it seems generally that PE bids are more powerful (at least, I always have a harder time defending against them), but at the same time PA bids are more fun and I would rather either bid that or have that bid against me.


  • It seems to me that a PE bid should naturally be lower than a PA bid in order to make a fair game.  Perhaps in the bidding process, the choice of bid type, PE, PA, or PAsia could be specified?  That way you could get a 23 ipc bid for PA or PAsia, but perhaps only a 18 ipc bid for PE.

    Though I think this might be difficult to do given bids can be split between these, for example a Power Europe bid of 5 infantry with 2 infantry (21 IPC total) going to Manchuria.


  • Maybe I am naieve, but I would think a Power Asia bid would be FAR more valuable than a PE bid.

    More IPC’s are lost to Russia more quickly via a PA bid than a PE bid, dramitcally crippling Russia and making them reliant on Allies for defense.  PA could also seriously weaken UK very quickly, allowing Australia to be taken in J1, as well as India (plus China)

    Even worse, a mixed bid, Mostly POwer Asia, but a few forces in Africa as well, and UK is also initially crippled economically.

    But then, my preference has always been Japan, and I tend to fight economic wars…


  • A pure Power Asia play is actually weak IMO.  It takes too much time for these forces to get to Moscow and does nothing to prevent the UK, US from reinforcing Moscow like the PE bid does.


  • Even with a 21 IPC bid in FIC of 3 ARM and 2 INF?

    China and Sinkiang fall on J1, and Manchuria is re-taken (or reinforced if Yak Stack)

    That is 3 ARM within striking distance of Moscow on R2, so Russia CAN’T devote 100% of it’s build to Karelia, weakening their position vs Germany.

    Add in other permutations of a 21 IPC’s Asia build, and UK starts running low on $ to load trannies, and Russia starts to run low on $ for INF.  Then add a quick strike by Japan into US territory to stop the shuck-shuck on the key round…


  • Switch,

    I’m not the best player when it comes to bids, but lets look at the following assumptions you make for a pure PAsia bid or 3 arm, 2 inf.  Its a bit long, but explains why I think a pure Power Asia bid takes too long to play out.

    =====================================================

    On R1, Russia builds the Yakut Stack (no Manchuria surprise), takes out the German Baltic fleet, and perhaps Norway as well.  Russia should have plenty of forces to hold Karelia, lets say building 4 inf in Moscow.

    On UK1, the British rebuild their Navy, with the US landing its fighters on US1 there…the North sea is secure.

    On J1, Japan does as you say, taking out China, Sinking, with Manchuria reinforced to take Yakut next turn.

    On US1, the USA can probably get a couple infantry to Norway, and build infantry and transports on the east coast.

    On round 2, Russia leaves 1 inf in Yakut, retreating the Yakut stack to Novo.  With 10 inf, tank, and two fighters, I doubt the Japanese force in Singking, China of a maximum of 4 arm, 2 inf, and fighters is going to be enough to take Novo.  Japan could take Kazak, but this sets up a deadzone for Russia.  Again Russia can build 2-4 inf in Karelia and 4 inf in Moscow.  Karelia should still be safe (thanks to UK fighters).

    J2, Japan takes Yakut but cannot really take Novo yet.  IF japan does, there won’t be many forces left because the bulk of the japanese infantry are in Yakut.

    UK2, reinforcements arrive in Karelia.

    US2, 1st of the US reinforcements arrives in Norway.

    On R3, Russia can again build in both Karelia and Moscow.  Germany should still not be able to take Karelia.

    On UK3, if the UK troops that landed in Karelia can either stay or move to Moscow.  This means the UK has reinforced Moscow before Japan can reach Moscow with significant forces.

    On J3, Japan can now take and hold Novo with significant forces.

    On US3, the first of the US reinforcements arrive in Karelia.

    =================================

    So by the end of three rounds, the UK can have troops in Moscow (US troops are in Karelia which should be enough to hold off the Germans) while Japan has just reached Novo.  These troops, along with the Russian forces should be enough to hold both Karelia and Moscow.  The Allies win the race to Moscow.


  • The whole in your theory is Germany.

    If, as you post, Russia takes Norway AND places 4 INF in Russia, Germany is taking Karelia on G2.  Not a question of taking, only question is with how many forces left.

    So um… which forces do you want to now use to take back Karelia and which do you want to have stop Japan?


  • Again, I’m not the expert with bids…I think Russia could probably take Norway and keep Karelia, but Russia doesn’t need to take Norway I suppose as the UK can reinforce Karelia directly.  Let the US have Norway then.

    My main points are:

    1. I think it takes too long for the Asia forces to reach Moscow.  The Allies arrive with reinforcements first.

    2. The bid does not prevent the reinforcing of Moscow…as does a PE bid.  So one big weakness of a Power Asia bid is that the Axis don’t split up the Allies and they can all defend moscow.  In fact, if needed, the UK forces can do so twice in a round…defending Karelia on the German turn and noncombat to Moscow to defend on the Japanese turn.Â

    3. Unlike a PE or PA bid, the Axis does not gain any territory (like Africa under a PA bid or Karelia, Ukraine, and possibly Caucasus under a PE bid) that it would not otherwise take and hold eventually anyway.  Therefore there isn’t a great economic gain to be had from the bid alone.  To gain extra territories and boost their economies, the axis will have to work for it (maybe the Japanese can afford to take Australia and NZ sooner but thats about it).


  • @221B:

    1. Unlike a PE or PA bid, the Axis does not gain any territory (like Africa under a PA bid or Karelia, Ukraine, and possibly Caucasus under a PE bid) that it would not otherwise take and hold eventually anyway.  Therefore there isn’t a great economic gain to be had from the bid alone.  To gain extra territories and boost their economies, the axis will have to work for it (maybe the Japanese can afford to take Australia and NZ sooner but thats about it).

    Don;t know what board you are looking at, but automatically, Japan is up an extra 2 from Sinkiang in J1.  And they have the forces there to raid further very quickly.

    UK is oing to be dropped by 7 IPC’s by the end of J2 (Australia, India, Persia), US is down 4, and Russia is down 4.
    In J3, UK loses another 1, Russia another 2.

    But in J4, UK REALLY takes a hit as the Aussie TRN makes it’s way back to Africa, and the land forces marching across Southern Asia reach the Suez.

    You can;t ignore Japan.  To do so is to lose.

  • Moderator

    As to Agents question, Avin game me an idea, what if you make all bids Cash bids?

    You may have to adjust it up to maybe a 27-30 bid or something because of the damage Russia can do, but here you have 59-62 IPC’s to spend on G1.

    This might open up some options.

    As to Power Asia,

    Germany gets bottled up too early, and opens up the potential for Russia to turn her army against Japan, similar to our game NCS.

    Example, Russia can kill baltic ships, strafe Ukr leaving them with only 1 ftr or 1 ftr, 1 arm, and protect Kar with ~15-16 inf, 3 arm, 2 ftrs.

    That would mean G1 would be 6 inf, 5-6 arm + planes vs Rus stack.  Russia holds easily.

    R2 - buy 3 inf, 3 arm.

    Still Hold Kar easily.

    R3 - buy inf Retreat what you need to Mos.  Now when J moves to Novo you can strafe the heck out of them with your inf, 7 arm, 2 ftrs.

    I don’t think Germany can provide the needed punch to really threaten Russia allowing Russia to focus on Japan.


  • In the earlier version with USSR attacking Norway… no problem.

    Against YOU…

    I’d have to play it through, but, without a Sea Lion Scare I just MIGHT pucll it off…


  • Attacking Norway on R1 is a bad choice anyway IMO… Strafing Ukr is still the best move. Ukr will become a deadzone.
    In a pure PAsia Germany is under heavy pressure too fast. First of all because you will lose more fighters on round 1. If Russia did wel your sub in the atlantic and the baltic fleet is gone so you are gonna lose fighters. So that will weaken FE…


  • @ncscswitch:

    @221B:

    1. Unlike a PE or PA bid, the Axis does not gain any territory (like Africa under a PA bid or Karelia, Ukraine, and possibly Caucasus under a PE bid) that it would not otherwise take and hold eventually anyway.  Therefore there isn’t a great economic gain to be had from the bid alone.  To gain extra territories and boost their economies, the axis will have to work for it (maybe the Japanese can afford to take Australia and NZ sooner but thats about it).

    Don;t know what board you are looking at, but automatically, Japan is up an extra 2 from Sinkiang in J1.  And they have the forces there to raid further very quickly.

    UK is oing to be dropped by 7 IPC’s by the end of J2 (Australia, India, Persia), US is down 4, and Russia is down 4.
    In J3, UK loses another 1, Russia another 2.

    But in J4, UK REALLY takes a hit as the Aussie TRN makes it’s way back to Africa, and the land forces marching across Southern Asia reach the Suez.

    You can;t ignore Japan.  To do so is to lose.

    But Japan could take Sinking onJ1 if it really wanted to and in most games Japan gets Sinking on J2 or J3 anyway without a bid.  Unless there is a PE bid, Germany almost never gets to keep Karelia, Ukraine and Caucasus.  With a PAfrica bid, Germany can hold Africa for much longer than normal and perhaps even most of the game.

    The ultimate growth of Japan in a PAsia bid (short of actually taking Russia) is the same as it would have been in a regular game.  Therefore, in terms of an economic victory, or at least having economies greater than the allies (75 ipcs); Power Asia doesn’t work as well as PE or PA.

    I’m not saying to ignore Japan, nor that a PAsia bid won’t work.  I’m just saying it does not ramp up the Axis economies like the other types of bids.


  • How can Japan take Sinkiang on J1? I see no possible way… (assuming you can’t blitz trough India) So how can Japan reach Sinkiang?


  • @Bashir:

    How can Japan take Sinkiang on J1? I see no possible way… (assuming you can’t blitz trough India) So how can Japan reach Sinkiang?

    On the Classic board, FIC and Sinkiang border each other in northwest FIC.  So you can use your FIC ground forces (augmented through a Power Asia bid) plus AF to take India and Sinkiang.  India falls to Kwang forces plus AF.  Manch is retaken with Amphib and AF, or the Manch forces take SFE and/or Yakut (depending on stacks, etc).

    On average, with a strong push by Russia in R1, using PAsia, Japan would be plus 7 after J1.  After J2, they would be +10 to +12

    Exception:
    If UK does the Kwangtung Maneuver in UK1, then Japan is going to be slightly slowed in some areas, speeded up in others.  For example, India falls easier (only 1 FIG max).  Sinkinag may be delayed for a round while Japan re-takes Kwang.  China still happens with the PAsia forces, and Manch is re-taken with the usual Amphib assault.

    BUT, trying to slow Japan on a PAsia with these two moves leaves the Allies wide open in Asia from J2 forward.  Russia is spent in the east, and unless they divert forces, Japan takes SFE and Yakut on J2, Sinkinag on J2, Persia and Kazakh on J2.  Australia on J3, New Zealand on J4.  AND Germany is not going to get counter-attacked in Egypt on UK1, so Germany will take IEA, BC, and Kenya/Rhodesia on G2, Syria via amphib on G2, and South Africa on G3.

    Yes, there are some counters to be considered here, but by the end of Turn 2, UK is going to be down to 18 IPC’s.  That is going to reduce the number of UK trannies that can be in the water and filled each round… 3-4 trannies max.  And Russia, while probably up Ukraine, will be down SFE, Yakut, and Kaz end of Turn 2, reducing their income by 1 INF division, and end of Turn 3 they are down 7, nearly a third of their income.  Add in SBR’s from Germany and Japan, and Russia is not building much…

    A PAsia build speeds up the run on Moscow by a round, and makes it far more powerful when the initial run gets there, meaning Russia has to pay more attention to it sooner, and drawing forces off the German front, allowing Germany to make a break-out attempt in G3…

    BTW:  I am rapidly becoming interested in playing someone this game!  LOL


  • I like the idea of capping units per territory.  But if it can be demonstrated that the 8 inf bid (split 4-4) can be easily beaten by the Allies, then it ceases to be a viable option.

    It can be beaten but I don’t think beaten easily would be apt.  Remember that a 4inf Ukr bid is still large and it should still require almost all of the Russians to attack it, and even with only 10Germans there there is a significant risk of rolling killer dice either as Russia or Germany.  Assuming LL Germany could even choose to place its bid 4-4 btwn Finland and Eeuro and deflect some of the Ukr issue.  However even with a LL PE bid split this way should Russia attack Ukr they stand a strong likelyhood of getting counterattacked in Karelia and therefore likely have to surrender karelia as the cost of this move, and considering that they will probably be giving up an equal exchange of units I think this would be a wash.

    Maybe if you mandate that Japan must get at least 2 units of every bid???

    I think that would be unnecessary and dangerous as it dilutes PE too much.  IMO PE is the weaker players best road to victory against a strong opponent.

    It seems to me that a PE bid should naturally be lower than a PA bid in order to make a fair game.  Perhaps in the bidding process, the choice of bid type, PE, PA, or PAsia could be specified?  That way you could get a 23 ipc bid for PA or PAsia, but perhaps only a 18 ipc bid for PE.

    No this is one of the fallacies of the game 7units of a bid is the same wherever it is placed the only difference btwn any bid package is how much that quantity of strength is concentrated and therefore the hardest for the Allies to dealy with by forcing them to make concessions somewhere else.  Consider that IMO it is a very bad idea to attack Manch against a PE bid with 7-8units in Europe b/c Germany and Japan should still be able to overwhelm Russia.  However in a PA game where there aren’t at least 1 unit bid into Asia you should count on Manch to be attacked.  This is b/c the bid in Africa is very far away from Moscow and therefore not an immediate threat.

    Maybe I am naieve, but I would think a Power Asia bid would be FAR more valuable than a PE bid.

    I suspect you could bid 9-10 guys into Asia and still not win.  This is b/c for every extra unit bid into Asia Russia can take a guy from Europe to compensate to slow down Japan.  Germany will be so weak in Europe that they will not be able to capitalize and Africa will be quickly lost so the US/UK should have an abundance of income to use against the Axis.

    More IPC’s are lost to Russia more quickly via a PA bid than a PE bid, dramitcally crippling Russia and making them reliant on Allies for defense.  PA could also seriously weaken UK very quickly, allowing Australia to be taken in J1, as well as India (plus China)

    The problem is the Russians have numerous techniques to guard some not all of their eastern ipcs.  Yakut and Sfe will be lost but Russia through some wise tank builds can protect Novo/Even/Kaz for a very long time.  In the end without Germany posing a threat in Europe the most Russia loses is 4ipcs which isn’t enought to make them weak.  On the other hand a PEurope game deprives Russia of Ukr,Karelia,FinNor as well as Yakut and SFE.  This makes the Russia base so small that they are very vulnerable to small scale bombing say 3bmbs.  With these terms Russia would have 17ipcs and lose ~9 a turn and so produce only  2-3inf a turn.

    Even worse, a mixed bid, Mostly POwer Asia, but a few forces in Africa as well, and UK is also initially crippled economically

    But the UK doesn’t need a lot of money to be effective in the game.  Further, the Allies if they know how to play will be able to wrestle Africa from you in order to provide the UK with cash.  Africa is unholdable for the Axis.

    The whole in your theory is Germany.

    If, as you post, Russia takes Norway AND places 4 INF in Russia, Germany is taking Karelia on G2.  Not a question of taking, only question is with how many forces left.

    So um… which forces do you want to now use to take back Karelia and which do you want to have stop Japan?

    The problem is that Russia can largely ignore Japan for 2-3 turns while they fortify Europe, wait for the Allies to take Africa, and get their troops to the continent.  Once that happens the Russians can begin to send troops eastward to confront Japan.  Remember that tanks are great for offense but loosy on defense b/c they mean fewer #s of units.  So even if you could take Novo on J2 whats to say that Russia won’t retake it on R4?  Japan still will not have its supply network caught up enought to hold so they are then playing the seesaw game with Russia where Russia pushes Japan from either Sink or Yakut on alternating turns.

    Also IMO you gravely overestimate Germany’s strength in Europe.  With this bid as Russia I would attack Ukr on R1 with 6inf 2arm and should take with 1-2 armor.  Along with this I can attack both the BalSz and the Spain sub so that Germany has to spend another ftr as well as its fleet to kack the UK battlefleet on G1.  At the end of G1 the Germans should have only ~9inf 5arm in Eeuro against Karelia.  The Germans should have 14inf arm 2ftrs.  There is no way you can take karelia on G2 even if you build all tanks on G1.  In the east Russia retreats westward and fights another day.

    As to Agents question, Avin game me an idea, what if you make all bids Cash bids?

    The only problem with this that I can see is that with an all cash bid the amount is going to have to be excessively large b/c you cannot leverage a placed bid against your opponent.  That is you cannot use a PE bid to protect Manch.  For this reason I think bids of 35+ will be common and 40+ likely.  Further, I think the game would be all but decided on R1, depending on how much Russia rolls over or under its expected totals will determine the Axis fate.  With this format I would still likely press around 4 turn1 Russian attacks if they go very well the Axis never catches up b/c you must assume they will only bid just enough to win with average dice.


  • I think the R1 attacks are just too powerful. If you win all 4 attacks, strafe Ukr/EEU, take Manch, kill Baltic fleet and kill the german sub in the atlantic, the Axis are simply done playing… They have to use fighters instead of subs or trannies. They are behind in the IPM build-up and are delayed so much that the Allies have even more time to regroup. That makes the PE (bid of 22-24) the only viable option to win for the axis and even then it is a race against the clock.
    So I am for the RR variant with a bid of 8-12 IPC’s. It willl stabalize the game a lot. Playing RR is also historically correct. It is not early 1942 if you start the game, because Pearl Harbor is not destroyed yet and the Russians didn’t come to the offensive till the end of 1942 or early 1943… So IMO RR is a correct way to play the game…


  • I also came up with another idea. Maybe the German lands should have more IPC value, I mean Germany and Seu. If you give them a few more IPC’s around, say 3-5 and lower the bids a bit you might come up with a more even game…

    Another option is to give Russia only 1 attack on R1 and the axis a bid of 12-15… Maybe changes some things. Let me hear what you guys think…

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

49

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts